Demystifying Jesus

[Aussiescribbler]

You will find the same sentiment expressed by Thomas Jefferson, ('Jefferson's Bible'). He did not believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, nor the divinity of Jesus, dismissed the religious ritual as 'hocus pocus'. But, he believed that the man Jesus was the 'greatest moral teacher'.

I've heard about Jefferson's Bible.

I actually have written an interpretation of the Holy Trinity from a non-supernatural perspective. I'm a pantheist. For me "God" is a mythological figure personifying the creative principle of the universe in the same way that "Mother Nature" is a mythological figure personifying the ecosystem. There are laws of nature which allow order and complexity to come into being. In the human realm. the emotion love (in collaboration with reason and imagination) allows us to form complex orderly social systems within which creativity flourishes. So love is also a manifestation of this creative principle.

This is how the Trinity works for me :

1. God the Father represents the creative principle.

2. God the Son is Jesus the man, who is an expression of that principle. (For the pantheist everything is an expression of God and expressions of God are God in the same way that, if we cut a slice from a block of cheese, the slice and the block are both still cheese.)

3. The Holy Spirit is simply factual truth. The "spirit" of something is its essence. "Holy" means "whole" or "of the whole". Truth, or factual reality, is the essence of the whole of what is. The creative principle ("God") is the essence of the universe. The Holy Spirit is that essence in its informational form. You could use the analogy of the relationship between a mathematical formula and the natural phenomena it describes.

So all three are expressions of the same principle. What makes Jesus special is his honesty. In order to fill the second spot in the Trinity someone needs to speak the truth, i.e. be a mouthpiece for the "Holy Spirit". He is thus the voice of truth, and thus the voice of "God".

The only way for this to work for me is to view Jesus' mode of expression as a poetic one. If one were to take him literally then he would be talking about the supernatural and thus this would not be a supernatural-free worldview.

I see Jesus as more than a "moral teacher". I view him as someone who could achieve what psychiatrists aim at - the healing of hurt minds. The problem with teaching morals is that it tends to engender feelings of guilt. When we fail to live up to the ideals we are taught it tends to undermine our self-acceptance. This state of insecurity about our own worth turns our attention inward - it makes us self-directed, i.e. selfish. I think the key elements of Jesus' approach are those which address guilt (and fear) as internal blockages to love and judgement as an external blockage to love. "Judge not that thou be not judged," is especially crucial because it recognises the connection between the inner blockage and the outer blockage. Guilt is self-judgement. As long as we don't judge others, there is no need to judge ourselves. To accept ourselves and others just as we are is to unleash the power of love to improve our behaviour.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

It is interesting to know how this 'story' evolved from the 'life situation' of the author(s). The biblical account we have today dates from the Babylonian exile and driven by the fear that the exiles were tempted to leave the God of Israel in favor of the fertility gods of the Babylonians. The fertility rituals were symbolized by the snake, which became for the biblical author the appropriate symbol for temptation.

That's interesting. I wondered why the snake in particular was the symbol used.

How would a symbolic representation of something which presumably took place more than a million years previously end up in the writings of these people living only a few thousand years ago? It's a good question. One could consider Jung's concept of a collective unconscious. Although I've read a little of Jung, I'm not sure, in practical terms, how these memories would be passed on. But I think that there is a special power in the imagination. When we open our mind to roam outside the bounds of linear reason it has a tendency to grasp larger patterns of meaning. We have problems which our brains are turning over all the time, consciously or subconscously, and when we allow our mind the freedom it will throw up possible solutions in story form. What were the elements of the problem? The painful distinction between good and evil. A sense of shame about things which were not a source of shame to animals. What could have happened to cause this problem? The Adam and Eve myth may have existed as an oral tradition for a long time before being written down. Just as the imagination throws up explanatory stories without understanding of them, we intuitively cling to those stories which connect most strongly to the deeper problems which plague our mind. It isn't just in religion. It is also why Homer's Odyssey still means so much to us. And, I suppose, why people go so crazy for Star Wars.

From what you say, it seems that a more current issue bled into the formulation of the myth. I'm aware that many interpretations of it place a high importance on sexuality.

There is also the question of whether myths have only one meaning or whether their role is to stimulate thought which may lead to different conclusions in different people. My interest in the interpretation of the Adam and Eve story began when I was a supporter of Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith's explanation for the battle between good and evil in human nature. After a few years I turned from supporter to critic. Griffith places a lot of attention on his own interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, linking it to his theory that "the human condition" arose as a result of a battle between our instincts and our intellect. As I've played around with Griffith's ideas to see if a credible explanation for the light and dark sides of human behaviour can be found by correcting for his personal bias, I found that I was able to improve on his interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. He has no explanation for the snake or the fact that Eve eats first. And in his version it needn't be The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Tree of Knowledge works just as well as he identifies it with the pursuit of rational understanding.

If you are interested to know more about Griffith's ideas you can check out his website. I've studied him for about 25 years, but I don't necessarily recommend it has a hobby for others :

Understand the Human Condition | World Transformation Movement

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Is it possible for there to be a real world interpretation what do you mean by that? Are you asking if its possible to translate the bible to our world and society? the answer is not. The bible doesn't translate to me at all.

Perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as I might have. By "real world interpretation" I mean an interpretation which does not require any belief in the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the Bible as a whole. I'm talking only of Jesus and the words attributed to him. I do bring in the story of Adam and Eve from Genesis in order to make a point. I'm not suggesting that this kind of interpretation is necessarily possible for the Old Testament generally.

I'm basically ignoring three levels of difficulty here :

1. We don't know if Jesus existed.

2. We don't know how far the written accounts of Jesus' life deviate from what really happened.

3. We don't know how trustworthy the translation of those written accounts is.

I don't see this as an insurmountable problem. The only reason I am interested in Jesus is because the words attributed to him in those written accounts, in one or other of the popular translations, have always struck a chord with me. Even if it were a complete work of fiction, and he never existed, those words would still have meaning to me. It is true that the story of his life (real or fictional) and the importance placed upon him by our culture serve to amplify the emotional weight of that meaning, but they are not the source of it. The source is the words themselves.

So you could look at my writing here in much the same way you might if I were writing an essay on The Great Gatsby. Can I derive from the text a meaning which enriches my appreciation of life?

First place its been translated wrong and whatever version your reading is probably wrong in the translation.

I recognise that there are many different translations and that biases of translators are always an issue. The version of the New Testament I use is the New International Version first published in 1973.

Is there anything I said in my OP which you feel suggests that I've been misled by a faulty translation? I'm not sure I went into enough detail for such fine points to come up. If "the truth will set you free" or "judge not that thou be not judged" are sentiments compromised by poor translation then we are on very shaky ground indeed.

The sins in the bible aren't sin, sin is partaking in something evil or wrong to do. But many sins in the bible cant be avoided.

The bible refers to prostitutes as evil. But the truth is they were not evil. Most prostitutes were children baby prostitutes kidnapped and forced into it. Sex in the bible isn't the same as today.

I put "sin" into Google and came up with this : "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law". This is the difficulty I tried to address. "Sin" is defined with reference to God or "divine law". Can we have a "real world" interpretation? Can we either define "God" or "divine law" in a non-supernatural way, or can we find some common factor to the things which are classified as "sins" which doesn't require reference to the supernatural? My argument is that what "sins" have in common is selfishness or perceived selfishness. There may be exceptions to that, but I think we can see that, as a general pattern - doing things to help others is seen as something virtuous, whereas doing things to help oneself at the expense of others is seen as "sinful". And we can see fairly easily I think that selfishness is at the heart of the world's social and ecological problems.

Of course the definition of sin becomes complicated by the cultural setting. If the religious doctrine is the product of a repressive patriarchal society, then acts which may disturb that order may be classified as "sinful" even though the society itself is the more destructive force, and, if God is defined as love, more anti-God.

I have a theory about why sex plays such a major role in the concept of sinfulness in many religious traditions. Here is how it goes :

Our ape-like ancestors lived like the bonobos, engaging freely in bisexual erotic exchanges as a way to reinforce social bonds. This was a bodily expression of love. When disharmony entered the group as a result of the events I described in my interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, the males became more aggressive. Since erotic exchanges were the way to keep the group together, the females tried to use sex to re-socialise the males. The nature of sex changed, becoming more intense with an undercurrent of male aggression. The ego embattlement of the males could be moderated, but not halted. Eventually they became so embattled that they began fighting with each other over the sexual favours of the women. Jealousy appeared. This eventually led to the establishment of monogamy and sexual repression generally. Further down this path, society as a whole became patriarchal. Those who came to hold power in this society were those who felt most compelled to exercise control over others because they were afraid of the feelings in themselves which most threatened their rigid ego structure. In such a society, the sexual desires of women (as well as homosexual desires in men) are viewed as an anarchic force threatening the order of society. Thus the patriarchs who make the rules declare these forms of sexuality, as well as adultery, are sinful. The impression I get is that Jesus recognised the need to work within this framework : ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18. In other words, these laws are in place to accommodate people's neuroses to the extent that society can hold together. Only when the neuroses are healed will freedom from repression be possible.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

This is too much to bite off at this point but I will respond to a few points. Once I read your responses I can decide if further debate is warranted.

1. Was Jesus a real person? No one can be certain but that is true for every historical event that has ever occurred. However the consensus among NT historians regardless of their faith is that among others the following historical facts are as true as historical evidence can make them:

A. Jesus appeared on the historic stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
B. That he performed a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
C. That he died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of the ruling class of Jewish theologians (or priests).
D. That his tomb was found empty after burial.
E. That even his enemies claimed to have witnessed him alive post mortem.

Keep in mind this is merely the tip of the iceberg and that I am not yet arguing that he actually had divine authority or that he could actually work literal miracles that is what he claimed and attempted.

2. What is meant by sin?

An action which is contradictory to God's nature or desire, or a failure to act in accordance with the same.

I have no problem addressing all of your additional points as well as I can, but I want to see how you respond to these before I decide how much time to invest in the discussion.

I'm interested in what you have to say, but we may be talking at cross-purposes. It's my fault for not wording my original question well. What I probably should have said is : "Can Jesus and his teachings have meaning for us in the absence of a belief in the supernatural?" I don't believe in a supernatural deity or a personal after-life and I don't believe in the resurrection, the walking on water, the water into wine, etc. in a literal sense. I'm willing to believe that Jesus attended a wedding where his loving presence made the water seem as intoxicating as wine. I'm willing to believe that Jesus brought a man named Lazarus out of a very deep depression and people said that it was as if he had been brought back from the dead. And I'm prepared to believe that Jesus had such a powerful influence on others that, after his death, they felt as if he took on a new life in their hearts and they saw visions of him.

Given that the accounts of Jesus' life that have come down to us were not written by eye-witnesses, it is much easier to believe that that life was mythologized in the retelling than that there is some human personality behind nature which can and would temporarily overturn its laws to impress some moral lesson on humans.

I'm a pantheist. For me God is a mythological figure personifying the creative principle of the universe which allows nature to bring order and complexity into being. Love is a key creative principle which allows individual humans to organise into a complex and more or less orderly society in which creativity can flourish. So for me, when it comes to human behaviour, "God is love". So perhaps the term "sin" could have meaning for me as a label for unloving behaviour of any kind.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

I don't think Jesus was focused at all on sin. I think that is reading too much into it. Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews, with a Jewish message. Sin wasn't a big deal, not anything like it is in Christianity.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. His message was about the end of the world. One can look at his life and see it as a sacrifice though, much like someone like Martin Luther King Jr. He died for something he believed in. And that thing was a better life for all.

So I think what we can really see in the story of Jesus, for those who aren't religious, more of a meaning in the end of his life.

His philosophy itself was probably pretty similar to that of a Pharisee during that time. He had some good sayings and the like, such as the golden rule, but I think it is his death that has the most meaning.

I agree that he preached an apocalypse. We see that in the Beatitudes which describe the relief which will come when the world of lies collapses. Also all the stuff about the signs of the end of days.

But on what basis do you say that "sin wasn't a big deal"? Are you saying that you don't find him talking about sin much in the gospels, or are you saying that you don't feel the gospels are an authentic account of his teachings?

What I'm responding to is what I read in the gospels. I see a bold philosophy there which includes valuing love over material possessions, non-judgement and forgiveness and the loving of one's enemies. It may be that that was all just run-of-the-mill Pharisee philosophy. I suppose I'll find out when I get around to reading the Old Testament.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

as for demystifying the Carpenter.....
you could dismiss the miracles and focus on the parables

That's what I do. I'm willing to grant the "exorcisms" as cathartic therapy akin to Yanov's Primal Scream though.

 

[1robin]

Most NT Historians all of them who believe what you just said are Christians.I have my doubts as to weather any real historians truly believe Jesus wa s ahistorical

1. That is why I DID NOT say that all NT historians believed those historical claims.
2. I said the consensus (usually meaning a simple majority) of NT historians agree that those facts are as well established as any historical facts from ancient history can possibly be. I have heard many say that the historical Jesus is as well established as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or Julius Caesar's Gallic wars against Vercingetorix.
3. I am perfectly rational to have faith in those historical claims because I am simply following the conclusion of most of the best qualified scholars to access those claims. However can not and have not stated I have absolute certainty in those historical events. All historical claims lack certainty and so must be assessed for the best conclusion from the data, but believe me I can easily show that those claims are far more likely to be true than not true.
4. Now after you incorrectly claimed that I made an argumentative mistake by claiming that the conclusion historians is proof of anything, you actually did make a worse mistake by merely stating what you believe which is in no way an argument for or against anything. You should have instead stated the reasons why you do not have faith in those claims.
5. In no way are Christians the only NT historians that hold to those historical conclusions. However, even if that was the case you have no way of knowing, So you are being dishonest to claim that.

No offense intended but you are making sloppy arguments so far which are easy but boring to counter.

Saying all NT Historians believe that is not proof. I don't see any proof of any of that. The bible isn't even translated right, none of what you mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book that was written by man.
Its not even translated with the right words from the original language and is questioned on its true validity as to the true authors who even wrote it.

I don't believe theres any proof that the story of Jesus was written any time close to the biblical period he was suppose to even lived in.

This is simply stating what you did in the first part of your posts in a different way.

1. I did not say that the conclusions of most NT scholars prove anything. I said that you can not find anyone more credible than NT historians to evaluate NT historical issues.
2. Here you doubled down on your mistake above by attempting to give me your beliefs and calling them arguments.
3. You did not attempt to provide a single reason or piece of evidence to support any of your beliefs.
4. I can not deny or agree with your claims because you did not post any evidence or specifics to examine.
5. All you did was state what you believe, asses my own specific claims incorrectly, you claim to know things that even if they were true you could not possibly know it, and you did not state any argumentation as to why I should believe you when you state what you believe when it contradicts the conclusions of most of the scholars who are in the best position to examine the evidence for those historical claims.

 

[fallingblood]

Heres a paragraph that agrees with your statement on him existing.

This one says he existed but the only thing they view as valid the bible says is he was born baptized and crucified like a million other guys in back then. Doesn't prove he was a savior.

First, Wiki isn't the end all. It is one source, and when it comes to religious topics, is usually heavily inaccurate. Often, it is nothing more than propaganda, as anyone can change it. I prefer to actually read the historians and scholars that are cited, instead of brief statements that don't reflect what the author was saying.

I didn't say he was the savior or a savior. So you are arguing against something I never even suggest. What we do have here is that there is near universal agreement that Jesus existed, and that we can know at least a few things for sure. Like most other historic individuals, the rest is a bit more fuzzy, but we can still get a basic idea. Also, the quote from wiki didn't say there were only two valid points. They said those were the two points with near universal agreement. There is a huge different.

Heres what Wiki says about Josephus

It doesn't say he witnessed Jesus coming back form the tomb or that Jesus was God, he says Jesus was a wise teacher and messiah. SO Josephus can be used as testimony he existed but not for Christian beliefs about Jesus.

Again, you're arguing against something I did say. You're building a straw man, and acting as if Wiki supports that. Not at all. What we have is a source, Josephus, that tells us that Jesus existed, and gives us some basic background. That's all I said. As for Christian beliefs about Jesus, I'm going to argue you have no idea what all the Christian beliefs of Jesus are. Not all think he was resurrected of that he was G-d. So again, you're arguing against things that weren't mentioned.

Heres a wiki article on the existence of Buddha too. Just as many historians believe Buddha lived as Jesus. Don't make Jesus more then he is, many great prophesy and messiahs were believed reliavle as well.

There you go, Buddha is just as believed to be real as Jesus was.

Never said Buddha didn't exist. So again, you're argument is neither here nor there. I spoke of Krishna, which is different. Maybe you want to read what was said, instead of assuming you know what I'm thinking, or making up arguments to respond to. I personally really like the Buddha, and have studied him quite a bit. I even have a few books that compare the teachings of the Buddha to Jesus.

Basically, what you've cited so far is what I was basically saying. Jesus existed.

I agree that he preached an apocalypse. We see that in the Beatitudes which describe the relief which will come when the world of lies collapses. Also all the stuff about the signs of the end of days.

But on what basis do you say that "sin wasn't a big deal"? Are you saying that you don't find him talking about sin much in the gospels, or are you saying that you don't feel the gospels are an authentic account of his teachings?

What I'm responding to is what I read in the gospels. I see a bold philosophy there which includes valuing love over material possessions, non-judgement and forgiveness and the loving of one's enemies. It may be that that was all just run-of-the-mill Pharisee philosophy. I suppose I'll find out when I get around to reading the Old Testament.

I don't think the Gospels are a fully authentic account of Jesus's teachings, but I think they get the gist (with some extras added). But for sins, I don't think he really cared all that much. He had a message for Jews, and he does talk about Jewish laws and the like. But that was addressed to the Jews, and really didn't have an impact on Gentiles. As in, I don't have to follow the Jewish laws as I'm not a practicing Jew. And historically, I don't think that Jews were as worried about sin as we are.

I think he was much more focused on the new kingdom, and that we should live as if it was here. So yes, things like love over material possessions, forgiveness, loving of one's enemies, etc. And that is a great message we call can find some worth in. So we do agree there. I see it largely as tolerance. A message similar to Martin Luther Kings Jr. A message one is willing to die for.

As for the Pharisees. Their philosophy really doesn't come into the OT. E.P. Sanders has a great book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism, as well as some other works on Judaism in the time of Jesus, that help to understand Pharisaic thought. Regretfully, we only have to Pharisees from the first century that wrote; Josephus and Paul, and both have problems when looking at Judaism.

 

[Riders]

4. Now after you incorrectly claimed that I made an argumentative mistake by claiming that the conclusion historians is proof of anything, you actually did make a worse mistake by merely stating what you believe which is in no way an argument for or against anything. You should have instead stated the reasons why you do not have faith in those claims.
5. In no way are Christians the only NT historians that hold to those historical conclusions. However, even if that was the case you have no way of knowing, So you are being dishonest to claim that.


Ill take it back and restate what I meant. I did not clearly communicated apparently. There is substantial proof that Jesus existed. However as in the statement that was made by the historian who said theres no more proof for Jesus then a group of pagans who existed : his existence was real, but so was quite a few of the religious messiahs and leaders.

Theres alot of proof that Buddha was a real person too and I can find other messiahs from the past. So yes he existed , but hes not anymore unusual or different then any other religion founder. there proof for most of them.

So I don't get how pulling him out in this thread as if he were different or that there is anymore proof for Jesus then anyone else.

 

[Riders]

First, Wiki isn't the end all. It is one source, and when it comes to religious topics, is usually heavily inaccurate. Often, it is nothing more than propaganda, as anyone can change it. I prefer to actually read the historians and scholars that are cited, instead of brief statements that don't reflect what the author was saying.

I didn't say he was the savior or a savior. So you are arguing against something I never even suggest. What we do have here is that there is near universal agreement that Jesus existed, and that we can know at least a few things for sure. Like most other historic individuals, the rest is a bit more fuzzy, but we can still get a basic idea. Also, the quote from wiki didn't say there were only two valid points. They said those were the two points with near universal agreement. There is a huge different

They said the only thing historians agree with is that he was born he was baptized and crucified. Theres no proof anything else written about him in the bible was true.

Again, you're arguing against something I did say. You're building a straw man, and acting as if Wiki supports that. Not at all. What we have is a source, Josephus, that tells us that Jesus existed, and gives us some basic background. That's all I said. As for Christian beliefs about Jesus, I'm going to argue you have no idea what all the Christian beliefs of Jesus are. Not all think he was resurrected of that he was G-d. So again, you're arguing against things that weren't mentioned.

Never said Buddha didn't exist. So again, you're argument is neither here nor there. I spoke of Krishna, which is different. Maybe you want to read what was said, instead of assuming you know what I'm thinking, or making up arguments to respond to. I personally really like the Buddha, and have studied him quite a bit. I even have a few books that compare the teachings of the Buddha to Jesus.


The point is Jesus isn't different then anyone else.Im not saying you said Buddha didn't exist don't put the words in my mouth.Jesus is not any different then any other religion founder thats all I'm saying.

Basically, what you've cited so far is what I was basically saying. Jesus existed.

I don't think the Gospels are a fully authentic account of Jesus's teachings, but I think they get the gist (with some extras added). But for sins, I don't think he really cared all that much. He had a message for Jews, and he does talk about Jewish laws and the like. But that was addressed to the Jews, and really didn't have an impact on Gentiles. As in, I don't have to follow the Jewish laws as I'm not a practicing Jew. And historically, I don't think that Jews were as worried about sin as we are.

Theres no proof for that.

I think he was much more focused on the new kingdom, and that we should live as if it was here. So yes, things like love over material possessions, forgiveness, loving of one's enemies, etc. And that is a great message we call can find some worth in. So we do agree there. I see it largely as tolerance. A message similar to Martin Luther Kings Jr. A message one is willing to die for.

As for the Pharisees. Their philosophy really doesn't come into the OT. E.P. Sanders has a great book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism, as well as some other works on Judaism in the time of Jesus, that help to understand Pharisaic thought. Regretfully, we only have to Pharisees from the first century that wrote; Josephus and Paul, and both have problems when looking at Judaism.

 

[fallingblood]

They said the only thing historians agree with is that he was born he was baptized and crucified. Theres no proof anything else written about him in the bible was true.

It said that those are the only points universally agreed upon. There are large numbers of historians who agree on other points, but then there are others who would debate those points.

I have dozens of books on Jesus, written by scholars, who agree on various points. I have dozens of books on Houdini, written by historians, who agree on various points. However, as with all historical figures, there are points that are also disagreed upon. For Houdini, both his birth place, and even his death are debated. That doesn't mean we can't find "proof" for different theories, or say that one particular position is more probable.

Truth is subjective. There is quite a bit in the Bible about Jesus that we can be sure of. That we can say has a higher probability of being correct historically. There are other ideas, theological ideas, that people can argue are true, as truth is subjective.

We can be fairly certain Jesus had a number of disciples that followed him, probably 12. Is there "proof" of this? Well not one single thing points to that, but a host of things suggest that, which means we can say that it is probable. Did he preach an apocalyptic message? Yeah, the probability is quite high, as we see it being said in both the Gospels, it is forwarded by Paul, and implied in by Josephus. Using the historical method, we can say quite a few things that are probable about the life of Jesus.

The point is Jesus isn't different then anyone else.Im not saying you said Buddha didn't exist don't put the words in my mouth.Jesus is not any different then any other religion founder thats all I'm saying.

That point is wrong. Jesus is different than me. He is different than John the Baptist. He's a unique historical figure, just as all historical figures are unique. And he is different than other religion founders as well.

Jesus didn't found a religion. A religion later on formed around an idea of Jesus, but Jesus himself didn't found it. He was a Jew. You can't just ball all founders of religions together, as their stories are different. Their reasons are different. And what is said about them is different.

Theres no proof for that.

You keep throwing out this word proof, but what does it even mean? There is evidence that Jesus spoke to Jews. As in, we have the Gospels, and Josephus. There is evidence that Jewish laws aren't for Gentiles. As in, Jews tell us that, as does the Bible. So I have no idea what you are talking about, especially when you don't expand.

This was said inr esponse to
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned

It doesn't say he existed, the exact words are we can't reject he existed, you cant prove he did or didn't, theres no way.

Again with that word prove. History is built on probability. What we do for historical figures is look at the evidence, and then we can come to a conclusion, based on probability, whether or not they existed. For Jesus, we can look at the evidence. We have Paul. We have the Gospels (which contain different, separate traditions). We have Josephus. That evidence provides proof that Jesus in fact did exist. Now, as with any historical figure, especially from 2,000 years ago, we don't accept those sources blindly. With the Gospels, we treat them as what they are, ancient lives. They aren't 100% historical, but neither are the same sort of works on Augustus, a figure we never question as to whether or not he existed. We treat the work critically, and we can come up with basic ideas.

So yes, if one understands the historic method, we can "prove" Jesus existed. As in, we can show that the probability that he existed is relatively high, to the point where we can confirm he in fact did exist. That in no way states anything about rest of the claims in the Gospels.

That's not proof he existed, the fact that they compared it to any other group of Pagans existed is a reference to any other spiritual leader in the past or any other messiah.

Yes, other spiritual leaders, and so-called messiahs existed. There is no problem with that. We can look at Josephus, and see a dozen other so-called messiahs. There is no reason to doubt that they didn't exist. You're point here is moot.

These historians aren't agreeing he existed theyre just saying they cant prove he did or didn't. Hes not anymore important in hisroty then any other leader. Your trying to make the Christian religion sound like its important. Therefore this is one of other passages. Ive got ore from WIki.

I'm not making Christianity sound important. I don't need to. Christianity, as a religion, is historically significant, and an important factor in history, as well as today. The same can be said for Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Figures like the Buddha, or Jesus, were historically important. Jesus became the center of a religion that had a massive impact on the world. Buddha was the center of a religion that had massive impacts on the world. That's important.

And yes, Jesus existed. We have enough evidence to rule that the probability that he existed is quite high. And without Jesus, the Christian movement would never have taken off, and the world today would be vastly difference, for better or worse. That's incredibly important.

 

[Cephus]

There are only two scholars, in the field, and by that I mean with actual degrees, who have undergone actual study in the field, that doubt the existence of Jesus. One is Robert Price, and the other is Richard Carrier. Richard Carrier is the only historian among the two. There are no other actual historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

That depends on what you mean by Jesus. If you mean the magical man that did miracles as described in the Bible, then no secular historians think that Jesus was real. If you mean some man or men who were preachers 2000 years ago and upon whom the mantle of divinity was posthumously draped, then sure, there could have been. The problem is that we have absolutely no evidence for such an individual, he left no historical footprint whatsoever. People assume that there must have been someone, but there is a difference between assuming and proving and nobody has managed to actually prove it, with objective evidence.

I'm assuming you mean 2,000 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. There is evidence Jesus lived though. The NT is good enough, or should be. If not, Josephus should be good enough.

Why? Especially since we know that the passage used to "prove" Jesus was nothing more than an early Christian attempt at forgery. Josephus is no more proof of Jesus than the Harry Potter books are proof of Voldemort. You're taking mythological tales about a magical man and asserting, without evidence, that they had to be based on a real person. But we're not interested in what your assertions are, we're interested in what your objective evidence is. So where is it?

 

[Riders]

Heres a statement about Zoroaster concerning myths and or legends people before the 10th century. Jesus was before the 10th century.

By any modern standard of historiography, no strictly historical evidence can place him into a fixed period, and the historicization surrounding him is part of a trend from before the 10th century which historicizes legends and myths.

This would apply to Jesus. Its insinuating historicity of people befor ethe 10th centu

That depends on what you mean by Jesus. If you mean the magical man that did miracles as described in the Bible, then no secular historians think that Jesus was real. If you mean some man or men who were preachers 2000 years ago and upon whom the mantle of divinity was posthumously draped, then sure, there could have been. The problem is that we have absolutely no evidence for such an individual, he left no historical footprint whatsoever. People assume that there must have been someone, but there is a difference between assuming and proving and nobody has managed to actually prove it, with objective evidence.



Why? Especially since we know that the passage used to "prove" Jesus was nothing more than an early Christian attempt at forgery. Josephus is no more proof of Jesus than the Harry Potter books are proof of Voldemort. You're taking mythological tales about a magical man and asserting, without evidence, that they had to be based on a real person. But we're not interested in what your assertions are, we're interested in what your objective evidence is. So where is it?

Thank you ,you said everything I was trying to say but better. You explained it better. Just knock out everything I said and read this post instead.

Its basically what Wiki was saying too, you cant disprove Jesus existed anymore then any other leader. But theres no real proof he did.

 

[1robin]

I'm interested in what you have to say, but we may be talking at cross-purposes. It's my fault for not wording my original question well. What I probably should have said is : "Can Jesus and his teachings have meaning for us in the absence of a belief in the supernatural?" I don't believe in a supernatural deity or a personal after-life and I don't believe in the resurrection, the walking on water, the water into wine, etc. in a literal sense. I'm willing to believe that Jesus attended a wedding where his loving presence made the water seem as intoxicating as wine. I'm willing to believe that Jesus brought a man named Lazarus out of a very deep depression and people said that it was as if he had been brought back from the dead. And I'm prepared to believe that Jesus had such a powerful influence on others that, after his death, they felt as if he took on a new life in their hearts and they saw visions of him.

Hello scribbler, what is behind your forum name?

One of the most beloved and brilliant journalists to have ever lived stated what must be and what can't be true concerning the historical claims from or about Christ. He stated:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
A quote from Mere Christianity

So Jesus was either a madman or he was God incarnate. Since his claim to coming on the clouds of heaven to rule the earth as occupant of the throne of God is recorded in the same place as your issue about his coming to a wedding, you must either accept all the biblical claims about Christ or none of them. There is no hero in neutrality, and if you choose not to decide you still have made your choice.

Christ's primary mission had to do with spiritual matters not earthly matters. So if you gut his supernatural claims you have denied Christ's primary claims and roll. Now we must decide to believe or not believe Christ about supernatural claims but to believe in things contrary to the evidence then we are acting in the most foolish way possible. So the issue is not so much what we believe but what the evidence suggests we should believe. It comes down to what it always does, the evidence for a claim. Do you want to shift gears to the evidence and argumentation concerning specific claims to the supernatural?

Given that the accounts of Jesus' life that have come down to us were not written by eye-witnesses, it is much easier to believe that that life was mythologized in the retelling than that there is some human personality behind nature which can and would temporarily overturn its laws to impress some moral lesson on humans.

That is not quite accurate, countless claims (maybe even the majority) were recorded by eyewitnesses. It depends on which specific claims your examining as to whether they were recorded by eyewitnesses.

I'm a pantheist. For me God is a mythological figure personifying the creative principle of the universe which allows nature to bring order and complexity into being. Love is a key creative principle which allows individual humans to organise into a complex and more or less orderly society in which creativity can flourish. So for me, when it comes to human behaviour, "God is love". So perhaps the term "sin" could have meaning for me as a label for unloving behaviour of any kind.

No offense intended but I have often remarked that I consider Pantheism to be one of the stranger types of religions. Pantheism's central tenant is that nature and God are equivalent but that makes one of those two terms redundant, and if God is equivalent to nature then since nature is not divine then in what way is it God? If God equals nature why not call everything either God or everything nature. Also all the evidence we have points to the universe coming into being out of nothing a finite time ago. So how in the world is nature the cause of nature's beginning to exist? Perhaps you can harmonize Pantheism's self contradictions.

 

[Riders]

Hello scribbler, what is behind your forum name?

One of the most beloved and brilliant journalists to have ever lived stated what must be and what can't be true concerning the historical claims from or about Christ. He stated:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
A quote from Mere Christianity

So Jesus was either a madman or he was God incarnate. Since his claim to coming on the clouds of heaven to rule the earth as occupant of the throne of God is recorded in the same place as your issue about his coming to a wedding, you must either accept all the biblical claims about Christ or none of them. There is no hero in neutrality, and if you choose not to decide you still have made your choice.

That's an old argument, I use to hear Bob Larsen make that same argument. Its a lie though.Its based upon believing that the bible is true, I don't believe Jesus made the statements that are made in the bible.


The bible was never translated or copied right. So no actually your wrong, that's not the only 2 choices there are. I personally don't know I even believe he existed.

I think a group of Messiah types existed then and said some things like jesus, but their followers made up some of the myths in the bible.

I don't believe Jesus said all that. SO there are many other choices. There not just those 2.Your wrong.

Christ's primary mission had to do with spiritual matters not earthly matters. So if you gut his supernatural claims you have denied Christ's primary claims and roll. Now we must decide to believe or not believe Christ about supernatural claims but to believe in things contrary to the evidence then we are acting in the most foolish way possible. So the issue is not so much what we believe but what the evidence suggests we should believe. It comes down to what it always does, the evidence for a claim. Do you want to shift gears to the evidence and argumentation concerning specific claims to the supernatural?



That is not quite accurate, countless claims (maybe even the majority) were recorded by eyewitnesses. It depends on which specific claims your examining as to whether they were recorded by eyewitnesses.

No offense intended but I have often remarked that I consider Pantheism to be one of the stranger types of religions. Pantheism's central tenant is that nature and God are equivalent but that makes one of those two terms redundant, and if God is equivalent to nature then since nature is not divine then in what way is it God? If God equals nature why not call everything either God or everything nature. Also all the evidence we have points to the universe coming into being out of nothing a finite time ago. So how in the world is nature the cause of nature's beginning to exist? Perhaps you can harmonize Pantheism's self contradictions.

 

[fallingblood]

That depends on what you mean by Jesus. If you mean the magical man that did miracles as described in the Bible, then no secular historians think that Jesus was real. If you mean some man or men who were preachers 2000 years ago and upon whom the mantle of divinity was posthumously draped, then sure, there could have been. The problem is that we have absolutely no evidence for such an individual, he left no historical footprint whatsoever. People assume that there must have been someone, but there is a difference between assuming and proving and nobody has managed to actually prove it, with objective evidence.

It really doesn't depend on what one may mean by Jesus. Because that all goes on top of the historical figure. I can say that Jesus existed, and we have enough evidence for that. That doesn't really say anything about him except that he existed.

The miracles and stuff are just things applied later on. And yes, no secular historians, and in fact many Christian historians, reject those attributes of Jesus. The basic figure is the same regardless, it is just the attributes given to him.

And yes, we do have evidence for him. We have Paul, we have the Gospels, and we have Josephus. There is absolutely on reason to throw out Paul or the Gospels, simply because they were later combined into a singular book.

We have more evidence for Jesus than many historical figures. And again, history is based on probability.

Why? Especially since we know that the passage used to "prove" Jesus was nothing more than an early Christian attempt at forgery. Josephus is no more proof of Jesus than the Harry Potter books are proof of Voldemort. You're taking mythological tales about a magical man and asserting, without evidence, that they had to be based on a real person. But we're not interested in what your assertions are, we're interested in what your objective evidence is. So where is it?

We don't know that about Josephus. More so, there are two passages in Josephus that speak of Jesus. One of them, which speaks of James, the brother of Jesus, is nearly universally accepted, and they dismiss it for no real reason than that it says something about Jesus. The longer passage, which you speak of, is nearly universally accepted as having an authentic core. Yes, at some later point, there was an interpolation, but we can remove that extra bit relatively easy. Which is why the scholarly consensus is that it has an authentic core, which is a witness to Jesus. And again, we have two passages there.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying, based on probability, as that is what history is based on, we can say that Jesus existed. We have Josephus, we have the Gospels (four different ones), and we have Paul. That is enough evidence. In fact, we can ignore everything in the NT, and just look at Josephus, and say that is enough.

And there is no such thing as objective evidence in history. We aren't talking about a hard science. Even figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, or even Harry Houdini are still debated about.

So Josephus should be more than enough. And then add to that the Gospels (which yes, have problems, but so do the early accounts of Augustus. But we don't reject Augustus, or even the early accounts on him. We critically look at them) and Paul, and we have more information about Jesus, more evidence for Jesus, than the vast majority of other historical figures up to that point.

Heres a statement about Zoroaster concerning myths and or legends people before the 10th century. Jesus was before the 10th century.

By any modern standard of historiography, no strictly historical evidence can place him into a fixed period, and the historicization surrounding him is part of a trend from before the 10th century which historicizes legends and myths.

This would apply to Jesus. Its insinuating historicity of people befor ethe 10th centu

So we can't place Augustus in a fixed period then? Or Alexander the Great? Because they also precede that point. Constantine precedes that point, so can we not put him in a fixed period then?

No, because that would be ridiculous to say. What may be true for one individual, is not necessarily true for another. The passage you referred to is strictly about Zoroaster. Dating Zoroaster is exceptionally difficult, and poses specific problems that aren't seen in figures like Jesus. We can place Jesus within a very limited time frame based on all the evidence we have. No scholar disagrees with that because the Gospels, Paul, and Josephus all place him within the first century, in Palestine.

The sources for Zoroaster, we don't have similar sources. The 10th Century that your source is talking about isn't the 10th century C.E. (or A.D.) though. It is talking about the 10th century B.C.E. so around 1,000 years before Jesus.

The reason we can't put Zoroaster into a specific time period is because by the time Zoroastrianism was being recorded, as written down, the religion had already been around for quite some time. It had also traveled a very long ways, so as with most ideas that precede the 10th century, we loose quite a bit of information regarding the origin. We're talking at best, about 300 years and possibly up to 1000 years between Zoroaster and the time in which much of the information was recorded. And the earliest writings we have, they don't give us a date for Zoroaster, as they didn't really care. It wasn't important.

So you're mixing two very different things here.

Its basically what Wiki was saying too, you cant disprove Jesus existed anymore then any other leader. But theres no real proof he did.

Actually, we can say for certain that there are some other leaders, mythical leaders, who never existed. And Wiki isn't a scholarly source. It doesn't pretend to be.

 

[fallingblood]

So Jesus was either a madman or he was God incarnate. Since his claim to coming on the clouds of heaven to rule the earth as occupant of the throne of God is recorded in the same place as your issue about his coming to a wedding, you must either accept all the biblical claims about Christ or none of them. There is no hero in neutrality, and if you choose not to decide you still have made your choice.

Big fan of C.S. Lewis. However, he's wrong. His claim is based on the assumption that the Bible is historically accurate; that what the Gospels record is accurate. That assumption is a bit much though.

What you, and Lewis have done is create an either/or fallacy. That isn't a must. We can look at each Biblical claim, and debate them on their own merit. The idea that Jesus was either a madman or G-d incarnate also isn't a must. He could simply be wrong. People are wrong all the time. Or, maybe he didn't claim what the Gospel said. Many options here.

Christ's primary mission had to do with spiritual matters not earthly matters. So if you gut his supernatural claims you have denied Christ's primary claims and roll. Now we must decide to believe or not believe Christ about supernatural claims but to believe in things contrary to the evidence then we are acting in the most foolish way possible. So the issue is not so much what we believe but what the evidence suggests we should believe. It comes down to what it always does, the evidence for a claim. Do you want to shift gears to the evidence and argumentation concerning specific claims to the supernatural?

Again, either or fallacy. Maybe you're wrong about his primary mission? I think his primary mission was about the Earth. In particular, the end of the world, as he was an apocalyptic minister who often talked about the Kingdom of G-d, how it was near, and the implication is that it would replace the Kingdom of Earth. Thus we should live as if it was the end times. Earthly matters largely.

That is not quite accurate, countless claims (maybe even the majority) were recorded by eyewitnesses. It depends on which specific claims your examining as to whether they were recorded by eyewitnesses.

That's not true at all. In Palestine, during the first century, we are talking about 1-3% of the population being literate. And that is a very basic literacy. Those who could right was less than 1%. Thus, most didn't rely on the written word, but on an oral tradition.

The Gospels themselves never claim to be written by eye witnesses. And knowing the culture at that time, it is most likely that they were based on the oral tradition. Luke even tells us that he used a vast array of other sources to put together his Gospel. And examining Matthew, we can be certain that the author copied Mark at points, and used other sources as well. This doesn't suggest eye witness accounts.

The bible was never translated or copied right. So no actually your wrong, that's not the only 2 choices there are. I personally don't know I even believe he existed.

You've repeated that the Bible was never translated or copied right, but you've never provided evidence as to what that means. Of course it wasn't copied perfectly, and translations are tricky. But then again, no book is every translated perfectly, nor are any ancient writings copied perfectly. That's part of history, and really isn't that much of a problem. It is only a problem if one believes the Bible is infallible. So I'm not sure what you bring that up, or what it actually means.

 

[Riders]

I was written 2000 years ago that alone is proof. I don't have any faith or belief in any physical attribute or any book true that was written 2000 years ago or any story. Its not reasonable.

If Jesus wants me to have his gospel he needs to appear on earth now and give a new theology and a new witness and a new bible written in this time for us.

I do believe in Buddha philosophy, but no proof to me that any of those holy books are true either. I just take knowledge and ideas form them that resignate for today.

But I don't literally believe in Jesus or the bible or any other book written back then, I can take some spiritual knowledge from it but its not literally true.I can ideas from them and apply it but no literal belief.

Infact I don't believe its possible to translate it to today, the culture and rules and their world was so so shockingly different from everything we do that we do and are.

I don't believe its possible to clearly literally believe any document from then can be translated right.

Their language was all together different. Id rather read like the program ACIM A Couse In Miracles written by an Athiest of todays times and apply it to my life. A lot of the bible, infact some of it I cant even understand, its not completely readable to me.

Its the same way with Buddha texts, I have class on the net and they use the old texts, but then they translate it for us, its not readable to me.

I need someone to explain to me and then apply it to modern culture like our Buddha teachers too. But the Pastor of modern Christian churches are stuck in the bible, they don't translate it for us and it doesn't apply to me, and it doesn't make sense for this century and the church doesn't.

I may read ACIM its got stuff about the sayings of Jesus in it but its modern, I may read it sometime in the future.Buddhist have their own easy versions to read too for this day. I don't read ancient books like that except now and then a little bit of it I can apply some of the ideas but most of it is not readable.

 

[Cephus]

It really doesn't depend on what one may mean by Jesus. Because that all goes on top of the historical figure. I can say that Jesus existed, and we have enough evidence for that. That doesn't really say anything about him except that he existed.

But you don't have any evidence of that, that's the point. If you did, you could present it. Just because you keep repeating that you have evidence doesn't mean that you have evidence. And just because you are convinced by this supposed evidence doesn't mean that the evidence is objectively convincing.

The miracles and stuff are just things applied later on. And yes, no secular historians, and in fact many Christian historians, reject those attributes of Jesus. The basic figure is the same regardless, it is just the attributes given to him.

Of course the Christian historians don't reject those attributes of Jesus or they wouldn't be Christians. It is hard to believe that they acknowledge that a historical Jesus is all there is and all of the miracles and stuff never happened at all. And you keep making empty assertions about a historical Jesus without anything to back those assertions up. You're arguing faith, not fact.

And yes, we do have evidence for him. We have Paul, we have the Gospels, and we have Josephus. There is absolutely on reason to throw out Paul or the Gospels, simply because they were later combined into a singular book.

But those books say nothing about a historical Jesus, they say lots about a mythological one. The two are not one and the same.

We have more evidence for Jesus than many historical figures. And again, history is based on probability.

No, it's based on fact. That's why multiple independent corroboration is what historians look for. A historical Jesus simply left nothing whatsoever to look at. He wrote nothing himself, nobody wrote any non-magical accounts of his life, there simply is nothing, beyond a book of mythology, that exists that describes an actual Jesus.

[quote[We don't know that about Josephus. More so, there are two passages in Josephus that speak of Jesus. One of them, which speaks of James, the brother of Jesus, is nearly universally accepted, and they dismiss it for no real reason than that it says something about Jesus. The longer passage, which you speak of, is nearly universally accepted as having an authentic core. Yes, at some later point, there was an interpolation, but we can remove that extra bit relatively easy. Which is why the scholarly consensus is that it has an authentic core, which is a witness to Jesus. And again, we have two passages there.[/quote]

Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus supposedly was, therefore even if everything written in Antiquities is accurate, he didn't see any of it with his own eyes, thus he isn't a witness to Jesus regardless.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying, based on probability, as that is what history is based on, we can say that Jesus existed. We have Josephus, we have the Gospels (four different ones), and we have Paul. That is enough evidence. In fact, we can ignore everything in the NT, and just look at Josephus, and say that is enough.

But it's not enough. You have Josephus, who couldn't have been an eyewitness, you have four anonymous gospels that you have no clue who wrote them and none of them describe a non-mythological Jesus, and you have Paul, who again, never saw Jesus. That's absolutely not enough to base your assertions on.

And there is no such thing as objective evidence in history. We aren't talking about a hard science. Even figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, or even Harry Houdini are still debated about.

Details, yes. Existence, no. There is no doubt that Harry Houdini was real. And history delves into the hard sciences all the time. The Trojan War was doubted for a long time, until they found actual, objective evidence to support it, then they changed their minds on some aspects of it. Clearly all of the nonsense about gods is still considered mythological, but there are certainly some parts of the story that did happen.

Now do the same thing with Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

I was written 2000 years ago that alone is proof. I don't have any faith or belief in any physical attribute or any book true that was written 2000 years ago or any story. Its not reasonable.

That isn't proof. You may not have faith in such, but that doesn't really say much. By your reasoning, we can say that Augustus may not have existed, or Alexander the Great may not have existed. Native Americans may never have migrated to North America, as that evidence can't be proof. Or the Persian and Babylonian empires never existed, as that all precedes 2,000 years ago as well.

Basically, you're dismissing thousands of years of history because it doesn't correspond to your own faith. That's not reasonable. And it shows a lack of understanding of the historical method.

If Jesus wants me to have his gospel he needs to appear on earth now and give a new theology and a new witness.

That has nothing to do with history though. That is speaking of something very different.

I do believe in Buddha philosophy, but no proof to me that any of those holy books are true either. I just take knowledge and ideas form them that resignate for today.

Truth is subjective. We can't prove any philosophy is true. Because it's subjective. But that has nothing to do with whether the Buddha existed, or any other leader existed. Two different concepts.

Infact I don't believe its possible to translate it to today, the culture and rules and their world was so so shockingly different from everything we do that we do and are.

I don't believe its possible to clearly literally believe any document from then can be translated right.

Their language was all together different. Id rather read like the program ACIM A Couse In Miracles written by an Athiest of todays times and apply it to my life. A lot of the bible, infact some of it I cant even understand, its not completely readable to me.

You're mixing translation with interpretation. I can assure you the Greek from the NT can be translated. In fact, I translate it quite a bit. The cultures and rules of that time don't necessarily change what the translations say. It does change the interpretation though, which comes after the fact (or at least should).

Now, it may not be a perfect translation, because the language is different. That doesn't mean that I can't know what the Greek is actually saying. Its the same with with Spanish. It often doesn't perfectly translate to English. That doesn't mean it can't be translated right, or that we should throw it away.

What you're talking about here is interpretation. And yes, we can have correct interpretation as well, if we study the culture and times of that area. That is why on my shelves, I have hundreds of books that about the time and place that Jesus lived, as well as the times surrounding that, as well as other similar works from that time, and works that may have informed the writings during that time. A correct interpretation just means one has to be informed.

Its the same way with Buddha texts, I have class on the net and they use the old texts, but then they translate it for us, its not readable to me.

That doesn't mean it can be translated though. It means that that translation doesn't fit you. I work a lot with Eastern texts, and have many translations of the various works, as well as some in their original languages. I have that because certain translations make things easier to understand. And I know that a translation is only part of what the text is saying, as often the languages don't match up exactly, so we do the best we can. That's a problem with nearly any translation.

I need someone to explain to me and then apply it to modern culture like our Buddha teachers too. But the Pastor of modern Christian churches are stuck in the bible, they don't translate it for us and it doesn't apply to me, and it doesn't make sense for this century and the church doesn't.

That is incorrect. That may be true for some churches, but not all. I worked for a Unitarian Universalist church, and that wasn't how we approached the Bible. My professors in college were largely Lutheran ministers, and that is not how they approached the Bible.